CCPR/C/117/D/2225/2012 incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 12 It also recalls that during the consideration of the State party’s initial report under article 40 of the Covenant, the Committee expressed its concern that the Military Service and Military Duty Act, as amended on 25 September 2010, does not recognize a person’s right to exercise conscientious objection to military service and does not provide for any alternative military service, and recommended that the State party, inter alia, take all necessary measures to review its legislation with a view to providing for alternative service. 13 Accordingly, the Committee finds that, by prosecuting and convicting the author for his refusal to perform compulsory military service due to his religious beliefs and conscientious objection, the State party has violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 14 (7) of the Covenant that he has been convicted and punished twice for his objection to perform compulsory military service. The Committee also notes that, on 13 February 2012, Azatlyk District Court convicted the author under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code for his refusal to perform compulsory military service, handing down a conditional sentence with one year of probation, and that he was again convicted by Berkararlyk District Court in the city of Ashgabat under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code on 3 March 2015 and sentenced to two years of “correctional labour”. The Committee further notes the author’s submission that article 18 (4) of the Military Service and Military Duty Act permits repeated call-up for military service and stipulates that a person refusing military service is exempt from further call-up only after he has received and served two criminal sentences. 9.6 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the author’s claim that he was convicted twice for the same offence is unfounded, because, inter alia, the two criminal offences were committed at different points in time and comprise separate corpus delicti. Therefore, the author can be held criminally liable for each of the offences. 9.7 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it states that article 14 (7) of the Covenant provides that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence of which they have already been finally convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. Furthermore, repeated punishment of conscientious objectors for not having obeyed a renewed order to serve in the military may amount to punishment for the same crime if such subsequent refusal is based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience (paras. 54-55). The Committee notes that, in the present case, the author has been tried and convicted twice under the same provision of the Turkmen Criminal Code on account of the fact that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, he objected to and refused to perform his compulsory military service. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present communication, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 14 (7) of the Covenant have been violated. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State 12 13 See Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.5; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, paras. 10.4 and 10.5; Young-kwan Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; and Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16. 7